Exactly. The IRS has TONS of information on every individual and business. There may be some unreported items, but that’s the exception to the rule.

The IRS has a “transcript” with all of the many reported transactions associated with each person/entity. And you can request this transcript, which many people with complicated tax situations do so they can verify that everything is reported correctly and their records match the IRS data.

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/get-transcript

Getting your first job after getting your degree is arguably the hardest time in your career. Just remember that it only takes one. Keep applying. Get help with your resume. Practicing interviewing and always have an appropriate outfit ready to go. You can do it.

I’m not saying it’s easy nor that you should be overly selective. Your struggles are valid and job seeking blows. But just keep trying. If others have been able to get a job in the industry, that’s a good sign. I know it can be hard to see and compre yourself against, but it does not mean you won’t follow.

Earning a degree is a major accomplishment and one you should be proud of. Loans can seem overbearing and stressful, but if they’re federal student loans, you can get on an income-based repayment plan to alleviate a lot of pressure. If you’re not generating income, the payment is usually $0. Very normal for new graduates and some people stay on them for a much longer time. Do not neglect these payments. Make sure to apply for this well before your first payment’s due date (probably now if your due date is January).

Just keep on trucking on. One day at a time. Your family cares enough to help you out and you’re in a tough spot. Keep trying to improve and it’s likely to happen. Lean on all of your contacts, friends, and personal drive.

Just writing from the heart. I take that as a major compliment though! Thanks! Might help you to know that I write for a living.

Of course. I’ll just speak generally instead of specific stories.

Judging people based on their charisma alone is a terrible approach. Many likable people are great, but others just say what they know other people want to hear. People pleasers that will always choose the popular option, not the “right” one… And some people can be very talented at using manipulative tactics to gain support even though they spread a lot of pain. The classic popular bully.

The reverse can also be true. Some extremely uncharismatic/unpopular people are amazing at heart. And can be trusted to do what’s right even if it’s unpopular.

That’s why it’s best to not make knee-jerk or immediate judgements. Listen to your gut, pay attention to details, and try not to let the opinion of others influence your opinions or decisions too much.

Looks like a meal that could fit into a plan to avoid pooping for 3 days.

The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share and that is something that needs to be corrected. The arguments in favor of progressive tax systems are countless.

It’s important to note that taxing wealth isn’t the same as taxing income. But you can do both and the US has a very well established system for doing so: income when earned and wealth when transferred to the next generation. Unfortunately, both of these systems have been gutted.

I’d love to see these both get their teeth back. Pretty simple really: (1) make progressive income tax rates apply to all income sources and decrease income exclusions/deductions and (2) lower the wealth tax exemptions and clamp down on tactics used to skirt around the exclusion amount (primarily family partnerships). This is basically just returning to policies the US had from about 1950 to 1970, which also was a time of exceptional middle class growth. It’s really not breaking new ground and it’s a proven, sound way to generate widespread economic success while also battling greed and inequality.

We could go a step beyond and do a value-added tax system too, which effectively taxes consumption, but that’s another topic entirely.

There are a lot of great reasons for places like this to exist, but one that should convince even the most fiscally conservative groups is the spending difference:

“The cost breaks down to $18,800 per person, per year — far less than the estimated $45,900 in taxpayer spending on a person who is homeless and using shelters, detox centers and hospital emergency departments.”

On top of that, people are much more likely in the long run to rejoin the workforce, generating income for themselves and the businesses they work for. They can also consume (buy) stuff. The long term economic impact is overwhelmingly positive.

That’s without even mentioning the moral/ethical obligations. But the fact is that a society with this sort of wealth shouldn’t allow people to suffer on the streets. I can’t comprehend how some US billionaires sleep at night knowing others don’t have a bed. Sleep knowing some of their own workers can’t afford basic needs. Sociopathic behavior that should be addressed and fixed through taxes and regulations.

That’s a good point, but for Sweden, it is indeed 480 paid days. It’s a government calculation related to your income and there is a point (after 390 days) where it drops to the minimum payout, but it is still paid leave.

There are also government-mandated options in Sweden to receive a slightly lower pay in exchange for working fewer hours. I don’t have the exact details here, but it’s something like 75% pay for 75% hours.

Pretty incredible coverage for new parents in that specific country.

This article has a great summary for a lot of European countries’ parental leave laws. And yeah, quite a few are less than a year of paid leave:

https://www.eurodev.com/blog/maternity-leave-europe

Absolutely. It’s political suicide for many of them. So they don’t rock the boat.

It’s a great example of where term limits could help. Great leaders will sometimes take actions that won’t get them re-elected. Immigration reform is one of those bullets someone needs to catch. But no one is willing to.

Even on the right where you might think anti-immigration stance is an easy winner, the corporate interests (donors) clash with the public opinion (voters). Immigrants are workers, a critical cog in the wheel of big business. But the right’s base LOVES a good “keep ‘em out” campaign. So what does the politician do? Say/do one thing (BIG WALLS) and turn a blind eye to another (massive amounts of undocumented workers employed by domestic firms). This side would usually go for the “it’s good for business” line (which holds a lot of truth). But they’ve been told it’s the immigrants’ faults they aren’t getting their fair share of the financial pie. So this false narrative to shed blame for wealth inequality causes a conflict in immigration policy with donor interest. Political suicide to act on it. Lose your voters or your donors.

The left is tricky too, believe it or not. Many left-leaning Americans have negative views about immigration and see border security as a huge issue. Even those that want increased ways to legal status also say they want more border security. The humanitarian view actually doesn’t have that much sway in voter opinion. And this side also isn’t likely to be convinced by the economic view (corporations will do better with more cheap labor) as that’s more aligned with right-leaning economy first views. This is where I think term limits would be useful because some left-leaning leaders could choose to handle true immigration reform in a way that appeases corporate donors but slightly disappoints voters. The kickback would be unlikely to last as long (not an entire party issue), but it would lose voters for that individual, almost definitely.

The executive branch has to deal with how to execute laws passed, even when they are in conflict with one another. So there is a lot of leeway provided to deal with those conflicts.

It’s hard to say exactly how necessary it is for the DHS to waive these 26 laws, but the argument is that in order to abide by the more pressing matter (the immigration laws and funding), they must ignore the other 26.

I am not as willing to concede that this is entirely out of the Biden administrations control. Instead of waiving all the 26 laws, why not use them to drag out the time and costs? They are mainly be about environmental studies, public feedback, and other measures that soak up funds and take a lot of time. If this administration was truly serious about not wanting to build the wall, they’re basically going against that by fast-tracking it.

I’m much more inclined to think there is a quid pro quo going on and them giving in on the wall - especially in this particular manner - is in exchange for something else. But that’s not something political leaders will be transparent about. We see checkers, but a chess game is happening (out of our vision).

Very true. Even just writing (or rewriting) the regulations is full of ways to get whatever the executive branch wants.

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” George Carlin

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot more to separation of powers than this. You might be well aware of all this, but for those that aren’t, here’s a giant wall of text.

The executive branch’s powers are clearly defined and including acting as the head of the military, the head of foreign affairs, and the executor of the laws congress passes. It is quite restricted by congress in many ways. Of course, the executive branch has emergency powers and limited ways around the laws congress enacts, but that’s not the default and it is very much intended to be restricted by congress.

The executive branch also has room to make interpretations (create regulations) and to prioritize certain laws when they come into conflict.

This is what they’re doing here. They have weighed the laws (from congress) they are tasked with enforcing, which includes (a) specific immigration restrictions and (b) a variety of other ones that could impact their ability to execute the immigration restrictions (the “26” laws waived, including water and environmental protections). The DHS (an executive branch agency) has determined that (b) these 26 place an undue burden that prevents them from executing (a) the immigration restrictions, and is therefore temporarily waiving (b).

You can read the actual order here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-22176.pdf

Notice that it does not say it’s randomly waiving laws of its own accord without a law that it is executing. It is clearly referencing the statues (enacted by congress) that it is acting on. It is identifying that it is failing to execute some laws, but only so it can prioritize another one it has deemed more important for this specific action. It’s also become popular for the executive branch to use emergency decrees to act unilaterally, but these are supposed to be much more limited and a functioning judiciary/congress should hold the executive accountable when this happens.

What the executive branch is NOT doing here is very important too. It is NOT deciding it doesn’t want to do what congress says. Congress could rewrite the immigration law or any of the other 26 laws to change the way the executive branch executes them, if it feels the executive is implementing them wrong. And the judicial branch could easily weigh in on this if someone affected brings the case to them.

Under his watch, the financial industry has already experienced vast automation and productivity increases. The coding and connections between financial firms and banks has cut what used to take days into an automated process that takes fractions of seconds… Yet it’s the norm to still work extremely long hours.

It seems disingenuous that this person who has reaped the rewards of this productivity increase without passing the time savings down the chain actually believes shorter work week is likely.

Wise of you to seek out advice and plan this far ahead. I’ve moved many times and have learned a thing or two.

First, savings. Don’t minimize them. It’s always crucial to live within your means and have cash set aside. Everything costs more than you think. The move, the new place, the getting settled into a new place. Jobs may not work out. Bottom line, do whatever you can to have some savings and quickly replenish it if you have to dig in.

Second, housing and transportation. Usually the two biggest out of pocket costs. Moving to a new area means you don’t know exactly where you want to live or what commutes are tolerable and where is worth living. So find something you’re comfortable with, but don’t overspend or get too committed. I love being close to work so I don’t have a long commute and will take a much smaller place to do so. I also don’t like living with roommates, so I often cut back transit costs and other expenses to live alone. If you don’t mind living with others, you can save a lot of money. But do not be house or car poor. See the first point.

Third, furnishings and getting settled in. It will take time. Don’t put too much pressure on yourself to create a picture-perfect home or have a big groups of friends right away. These things take time, especially to be done well. Cover your household basics (a good mattress is a worthwhile investment) then keep an eye out for second hand goods to get things started. Try to expand your horizons and join local groups or clubs to make some friends with similar interests. If you notice red flags, pay attention to them. Sometimes nasty people cling onto newcomers and can cause you unnecessary stress/problems. Seek out worthwhile relationships and nurture them instead.

Moving to a new places is one of the most exciting and frightening things you can do. But as long as you avoid getting your bank account too close to zero and take your time while putting in effort to live like a local, it can be absolutely amazing. I’ve lived in different countries, met people from vastly different cultures, lived on entirely different cuisine, and simply had some of the most mind and soul-expanding adventures in new areas. I’ve also missed my home, my family, friends I left behind, things I gave up, and more. But the reality is that all the material stuff will come and go, the time with family and friends should be cherished but not limit your life, and at the end of the day, you are the one in charge of your destiny. It’s up to you and you alone to figure out where to live and what to do to discover happiness. Just make sure to give yourself a fighting chance. Don’t go broke. And avoid abusing anything. Moderation and variety.

I write too much. Good luck!

Without knowing the costs, it sounds like you’re good candidates for the supplemental life or even an additional life policy. A year of salary can go quite quickly, as can the time and the costs of taking it off work. Term can be fine to start with, then later in life as it becomes a larger concern (especially with kids) you may consider whole life. But if you have substantial liquid savings, then you might just be fine with the 1-1.5x coverage for now. Once again, just all about your risk tolerance and savings.

Disability is very difficult to plan for and make a purely rational decision about. There are so many moving factors with the medical costs and length of the problem. For people who want total security, that $700 can be well worth it to sleep soundly. For others with more savings and a little room in their finances to cut back expenses, it might not be worthwhile. The more savings and the more you can rely on your partner for income, the less important it is.

But tackling it from a quantitative perspective may help. For $700, you’re getting 20% of your income. It’s a low-cost premium because the risk is usually low (unless you have reason to believe you’re likely to become disabled). You can also shop for separate plans to see how the premium lines up against competitors. It’s also important to understand the elimination period (how long you have to wait before you can claim benefits) and if it will pay out if you can perform ANY job vs your actual profession.

This is a pretty decent article on an approach to disability coverage: https://www.usbank.com/financialiq/plan-your-future/health-and-wellness/is-your-employer-long-term-disability-insurance-enough.html

Wayyyy too long of an answer. But I have some experience and might as well not let it go to waste. Definitely doesn’t hurt to talk with a financial advisor about it.

Always a good idea to check out market rates but your employer provided one likely has better premium rates as part of the group and with part of the payment possibly covered by your employer.

Deciding how much life insurance you should get is dependent on your personal situation, your desired coverage, and your risk tolerance.

But it’s likely that both of you having spousal coverage is a little toward overkill. I’d be more concerned about your disability coverage or the coverage of the highest-earning partner, especially if there’s a large disparity in earnings.

The main reason many people get life insurance is to make sure a non-working surviving spouse has the resources they need to get by with the same lifestyle and hopefully in the same house. So when you or your partner is not working, it’s usually the working partner that you want to have the most coverage (perhaps aligned with what would be needed to comfortably “retire” which really means just live the same lifestyle but only off investment income).

The second reason people get life insurance is to help with the short term consequences and expenses. Funerals are expensive. Debt can pile up with end of life care. Taking time off work can cause income drops. Daycare costs might need to be incurred. This is usually where the spousal coverage comes into play. Typically much lower coverage to give the working, surviving spouse a temporary boost due to death-related expensive, but not retire. Child policies are similar.

The more savings or investments you have, the lower your true need for this insurance is. If you can already comfortably retire, then it’s not a huge deal if either one passes (financially). And you have the cash to pay for short term death-related expenses.

Disability is a bigger deal to many people with substantial savings. It can mean a serious increase in expenses (to handle the disability) with a simultaneous decrease in earnings.

But some people also treat life insurance as an investment or a way to hedge specific risks. If you don’t want to work again if your spouse/partner passes, you can get increased coverage. Or if you simply like the security of getting a lump sum if one of your passes early, the premium cost might be worth it. Those are a personal decision and risk/reward calculation only you can make.

On the open market, you’ll find term and whole life. Term insurance is much lower cost because it only lasts a certain period (term). Whole life can be paid as a continuous premium until you file a claim (someone passes). People who are serious about life insurance get whole life policies and treat them as a wealth building investment. Many have cash values, where part of your premium goes into a savings-like account that builds at a certain interest rate. If you’re thinking of this, talk with a qualified advisor. And get at least 2 quotes from highly-rated and stable insurance companies.

deleted by creator

They’ll also use the customer donations in their own marketing materials with carefully chosen wording.

“We put $X in the hands of X charity!” Sounds cute, until you realize why they don’t say they “donated $X” instead. It’s because it’s often not their money or donation.

I know your comment isn’t truly asking, but I want to answer just because there was a time when I used to put a lot of pressure on myself to generate something truly insightful, creative, deep, etc. before voicing my thoughts or opinion. Then I realized you don’t need to do that. I still have a tendency to - and I’m not saying everyone should just voice their loud-ass bullshit without thinking.

You likely have an insight that someone would find interesting, even if it seems entirely obvious to you. Great conversation can sometimes be a very simple volley back and forth of extremely basic observations.

Run with whatever logic this makes your mind go to… even if it’s something like “crazy that people vote to give rich people more money” or another basic interpretation of this. It gets the ball rolling for other people, let’s them put a new spin on it, and may be that little spark needed to create something more impactful.